Boards

Anyone seen it? Just got back; thought it was pretty good. Difficult to praise it too highly 'cause it was mostly just stuff happening. Some great lines and music cues, and it was very well edited. Can't really understand why a bunch of people have been claiming it doesn't demonise Belfort et al enough - it seems pretty clear that they're mostly awful people throughout. So there's my very inarticulate take on it, what do you fucking cocksuckers fucking think about this shit?

basically the same type of plot as goodfellas but with banking. normal bloke with a normal wife being corrupted and sucked in by the glamour and success of not playing by the normal rules. then getting caught out.

thought di caprio was the bomb and everyone else was great. it was a little unfocused and bloated and times and the ending felt a bit rushed and forced but i heard it was based on the real memoirs of the jordan bloke so can't criticise it too much for that. apparently it was a fairly faithful retelling of the real story.

Felt very much like Scorcese re-making the same film he's made at least 3 times before where you really enjoy watching the main character but then get hit with the suckerpunch that, actually, he's a fairly shitty person. Definitely a bit too long, but seriously fucking enjoyable. Also the cinema was pretty much completely full and laughed throughout, which is more than I can say for some actual all-out comedies I've seen recently (hiya, Anchorman 2).

Very well cast, too. Jonah Hill deserves to walk away with the best supporting actor Oscar. In fact, I'd like to see it clean up at the academy awards, although no doubt 12 years a slave will. Fuck that emotional bullshit, it was fucking dire, wouldn't even wipe my arse with that film.

Good to see a Scorsese film that isn't terribly worthy and dull and is just balls out fun. The scenes where DiCaprio and Hill overdose on luudes may be the funniest thing I've seen at the pictures for a long time. All the actors are clearly enjoying themselves and Margot Robbie is smokin' hot.
There's been a certain amount of handwringing because the characters don't give a shit about their victims and mostly get away with things, but that would have been a completely different movie and a lot less interesting.

dicaprio killed it, it was properly hilarious - especially that incredible 'cerebral palsy stage' scene. best thing scorcese has done since goodfellas. loved that it lacked any level of morality - just told the insane story in an insane way. shit on american hustle, 12 years etc. in terms of filmmaking and pissed on most things in terms of entertainment. electrifying. still on a cinematic high from it the next day.
"go fuck your cousin" etc.

there are lots of really good/fun things about it, it is a fun experience to watch and DiCaprio and Hill are both capital B Brilliant. It's just difficult to get too involved in the lives of utterly reprehensible people (in their treatment of drugs, women and money) for THREE FUCKING HOURS which inevitably gets very repetitive (which IMO is the same problem with Goodfellas, which this is intentionally very similar to).

It's worth a watch though for sure, a solid 7/10 (would score higher if someone had the balls to tell Scorsese to have some self-restraint though)

thanks, the disclaimer at the bottom kinda undermines it a little bit, like, what are all the women co-workers doing during these orgies other than participating or getting boob jobs? But it is a well argued piece for the most part

the only real power they've ascribed to her is sexual (sigh). the shot they've used looks like her bossing him but SPOILERS is actually him in the process of humiliating her.

The point that the bankers being awful to women is part of them being bastards in general is true though uninteresting; the film seduces the viewer to side with the devil throughout. it's a long way from being a feminist film or even respecting women that much imo.

I agree with Severed pretty much entirely, it's fun and entertaining, but not much more. The tone is a funny one; you can tell we're meant to be laughing at their lifestyles...but that's hard when most of the jokes are like jocks laughing at their wacky misadventures.

saved only from a 4 by dicap and jonah hill's performances, and the scene on the yacht with the FBI agent were it looked like the film might finally have some dynamic.
Was far too long, as has been mentioned.
Re-watched goodfellas fairly recently so felt like he was taking the piss a bit. Thought it was a bit shit-eating to parallel a representation of stock brokers with your own representation of gangsters.
Got the measure of leo's character after about 30 mins, the rest was just gratuitous... and yes I know its meant to be about excess, but you the presentation of that excess doesn't itself need to be excessive in order to make sense.

Was a bit baffled by the audience reaction though - people were in stitches when he declared he had discovered the 'cerebral palsy phase' and at what followed. It seemed to take him clocking his wife for them to realise its not meant to be all fun and games.

I mean, I thought the cellebal palsy scene was excellent physical comedy and a talent I didn't know DiCap had in him, but yeah, suddenly everyone was shocked when he hit Naomi and it's like "oh right, so you didn't mind when he has snorting coke out of a hooker's arsehole, but this is too much"

*SPOILER*
people actually tutted and made a "aww that's a shame" noise when the FBI find his note to Jonah Hill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but this is sort of what I was trying to get at upthread. the film show them doing reprehensible things - if you just read a bare list of everything they did, you'd be horrified - but it also throws all of its energy, cool dialogue, great visuals, great soundtrack (apart from everlong, great song but odd choice) into making it look like an absolute *blast*. It tries to get you onside, and if you watch uncritically (as I always seem to) it'll succeed. Hence people being sad when the FBI find the note, or only really getting upset when he punches his wife in the stomach.

I thought this was a pretty common move for gangster film/tv, too - the sopranos spent a lot of energy getting you onside with Tony, before slowly forcing you to confront what a shit he really was.

I as onside with leo dicap's character - for the first half hour I was seriously considering trying to get into IB or something, just imagining that one day I would make an effort to throw aside all my principles and have as much fun as he was.

But thats where it stops. There was so much more to tony soprano than 'knows he's morally bereft; doesn't care; has fun anyway'.

So after 30 mins I was lagging a bit. I did like that it wasn't judgemental about people who value money and material things - like that woman who he wrote a $25,000 cheque. For her its fine to want money.

Anyway thats why I think saying you're miserable not to take it purely as a joy ride is childish.

the lot of you.
it was fucking hilarious and the characters, as reprehensible as they were, are entirely enjoyable.
the whole movie is just a massive trip on their terms and you can either enjoy or be a miserable dick about it.

just wanted to offer a legit apology for how unbelievably dickish my earlier post came off. check the time on the posting and you'll have a better idea why. hey, i like the film, no need to be a drunken cock about it though. sorry.

to not care what happens to detestable characters being despicable FOR THREE HOURS. yes_'s comment is hilariously glib and not true either; I enjoyed watching them for a while, then got a bit bored when nothing was really happening.

All the film needs to do is cut about 40 minutes and it becomes a really great film.

It’s clearly not a capital-g Great Film precisely because of how shallow it is, but I guess if Goodfellas is tragedy, then this is it repeated as farce.

Having said that, I don’t entirely understand the critics who want it to be a morality play. As the blog above rightly states: “The film never shies away from the reality that sometimes the dicks win and the good guys go home alone.”

It wouldn’t be a better film if it had scenes of a postman crying into his cornflakes because he lost his life savings bolted on to it or dramatically revealed a stripper was just a hard-working single mum all along. (Which is not to say that well-made films about those subjects might not be better.) Belfort is an arsehole and he basically gets away with it. That’s what our society enabled him to do and that’s what the film shows. If we’re worried about people seeing something to aspire to in his behaviour, then we’ve got bigger problems than this film.

Not sure how many more times the 'charming/attractive person becomes very successful and massively rich doing something a bit iffy and then eventually gets caught by their own greed/arrogance' thing can be done. such a well-trodden story.

There was no overarching theme to grapple with. Neither the morality of [their] business, his relationship with his father, his relationship with his wife, persecution from the FBI agent nor unrepentant procession towards richness was sufficiently developed for the viewer to become interested in any of the consequences. It was all utterly trivial.

All were fleeting references stacked like a tower of cards — one that was built up then knocked down in visual and aural pizzaz.

It's difficult to say anything about his relationship with his wife. There was no compelling reason to believe she felt strong enough to file for divorce. His behaviour never affected her. So, why insert the divorce dimension at all?

The scene with the drugs and the Lamborghini is the least funniest 'comedy' scene I ever saw. Someone up there likened it with the 'Hangover', which I agree with.

didnt feel like a 3hr film. I like that they didnt give most of the characters redeeming qualities. Sometimes its fun to watch assholes, and those people were assholes. I found the physical comedy by Di Caprio and Jonah Hill really funny and i enjoyed that naked woman, you know the one i mean.

Gratuitous, but not effectively gratuitous. It just didn't have any depth and I didn't truly believe they (narrator et al.) felt their behavior was reprehensible. Sure they were a little upset at times, but it wasn't well done and the comedy seemed more of a forced distraction for the viewer. I think, in terms of the "materialism is bad/80's excess" genre, American Psycho (the novel) is a much better portrayal of the era and the values associated with it. I know they're not the same in terms of content, but the settings are almost identical except one (American Psycho) properly captures self-loathing, materialism angle without the crass jock humour. The Wolf of Wall Street is just such a glossy hollywood film with pretty characters and pretty wives etc. I can't help but feel if the budget was smaller and the narrative was more focused and less comedic - it could have been an excellent film. Also needed a lot of editing. Lots of scenes were superfluous, especially the extended self-aggrandizing speeches that the audience genuinely fell for. Fuck me.

If it was meant to be a comedy, I just didn't think it was that funny. Margot from Neighbours though, bearing it all to the worldwide public. Didn't think she was that attractive in Neighbours. They really 'stunned' her up in the movie. It wasn't shocking; it was annoying. Shocking isn't disgusting.

-too long? I'd say if it was the standard 2 hours, it would seem "too fun", if that makes sense. Hangover goes Wall Street. With 3 hours you have to go through endless scenes of debauchery, which underlines the point. Someone on a podcast said it was like when a child is caught smoking, the dad forces him to smoke the whole pack to teach him a lesson, so here the audience is kind of told, you're not getting out of here until you've finished all the pills, coke and hookers.
-his trophy wife dumping him just when he'd down on his luck and she not having a reason to do so? Well, the reasons were up there on the screen (Popeye), the guy was a monster. they had a -probably incredibly traumatised - child.
-the complete lack of interest/focus on the victims? yes, that was the point.
-the main character being an unrepentant asshole? yes, because he is.